I really, really hate smokers

[Boris Godunov]

After we got the new smoking law a few years back, we've had a large growth of "snus"(dunno the english term), wet tobacco which you place under your upper lip. Especially after the bag version came on the market.

See, there's a good solution. So long as the users of chewing tobacco make sure to spit the residue or whatever its called into appropriate recepticles, they are containing the problem to themselves. Get mouth cancer, sure, but at least they don't make everyone else join them.

[Boris Godunov]

Given the mess I had to sort out, yes it is. It wouldn't be stocked with considerable discussion, but I suppose you know my job better then I do.

I thought you didn't have a job. Have you been a pharmacist?

I don't think you understand what the word "policy" actually means...

Yes, I believe she acted in the way she ought to have, and we'd be better off if more pharmacists did the same. I don't believe Eckhard should have fired her, even if he was justified in doing so. Just because you are legally able to do something doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

The argument was not about right and wrong, it was about legal vs. illegal. You said that Eckerd (can you get the spelling right? That's the name of the pharmacy chain, not a person) shouldn't have been able to fire the pharmacist.

Still, I find this a hypocritical statement. The pharmacist took the job at Eckerd knowing full well they dispensed birth control. Given all your worship of contracts, to say it is somehow morally right for her to break her contract (i.e. lie) and refuse to do what she agreed is absurd. She lied when she agreed to sell Eckerd's products, and exposed her employer to a potential lawsuit.

She wasn't refusing the emergency contraception to some teenage girl who decided to hump her boyfriend and screwed up, it was a rape victim.

Wrong. The job of a pharmacist isn't to just rubberstamp a prescription. If it were, we'd have Mickey D clerks filling them out. I really don't understand why people don't respect the training that a pharmacist must do in order to do their job. If a prescription would provoke drug conflicts that the physician was unaware, then it's their duty not to fill out the prescription.

I didn't say that. Of course, pharmacists are expected to prevent things like overdosing and act as a safety net. That does NOT give them the right, however, to refuse to dispense a medication as a whole, if the pharmacy itself sells them. That is a completely different situation. A comparable situation would be a bartender. They have every right (and are legally required, in most cases) to refuse to serve a drink to someone if they are too drunk. They do NOT have the right to refuse to serve a product of the bar entirely, and could rightfully be sacked for it.

Then you need to spell that out in the contract. Otherwise, the employee's conscience rights trump the employers' desire. Default is, unless the employer takes steps to protect himself, that the employee's conscience takes precedent.

As I said, pharmacists contract will state they will dispense whatever medications the pharmacy carries. A blanket statement like that covers birth control.

If the employee signs the contract saying that she will prescribe contraception, then she's legally obligated. Otherwise, no.

Yes, she is. And signing a contract that says "You will dispense whatever medications we carry" meets this criteria. Ergo: obligation.

I find it baffling that you'd support an employer willing to run roughshod over employee conscience rights when it's about contraception, but would bend over backwards when it has to do with smoking.

Run roughshod? You yourself said that if an employee has signed a contract with an employer, the contract should be valid no matter what the government thinks. So an employee would have no rights beyond what is contractually ordained.

I have been consistent: The rights of an employer stop at the point where the health of a worker can be unneccessarily jeapordized, the rights of the employee stop at a point where they cause an undue burden on the employer to conduct its business.

So my position is to protect employee rights AND health, yours is not. You're only interested in protecting the consciences of a few folks who happen to share your right wing ideology. You said that you don't care about the health of a worker so long as they've signed a contract declaring their health disposable. Positively callous.

My position is consistant across both. If the employer makes it very clear that the employee will be required to do something and specifies that in the contract, and the employee signs it, then they are obligated to do so.

Which of course you don't actually believe, because you accept that contracts can be signed even between two willing parties that cannot be legally obligated, such as selling one's self into slavery. Or being a prostitute. Yeah, not so consistent.

I see dealing with smokers a core part of a job as a waitress or bartender.

Bull****. Nothing about working in a restaurant or bar NECESSITATES an exposure to smoke. The core function of a server is to serve the items that the establishment sells. It's no more a core function of the job than it would be for them to have to be threatened by exposed, faulty wiring in the restaurant or asbestos in the walls.

Contraception on the other hand is just one of tens of thousands of pharmaceuticals, and you are saying it's a core part of their job. You must see bartenders as skilled positions and pharmacists as unskilled.

Utterly absurd. The issue is that dispensing any and all medications is a core part of their job. You cannot logically isolate any particular medication from that, no more than you can isolate a particular drink from the serving duties of a bartender. If a pharmacist refused to dispense cancer medications in toto, how could you say they were NOT refusing to do the core function of their job?

If you are a john and solicit a police officer, that's your problem.

A dodge, and a nonsensical one at that. You have given a very good justification for decriminalizing prostitution, which is simply a contract for an exchange of services. Since you think that so long as two people making a contract shouldn't have any government interference, you naturally must agree therefore that prostitution should not be illegal. Yes?

And why did your signature change? The bet was until the inauguration. Put it back, please.

[Lorizael]

Oh, you won't get any argument from me. I've had more than enough people in my family die of lung cancer.

[Elok]

Starting that way might be fine, but switching would be more difficult. The addiction to nicotine gets people to really love the feeling of smoke in their lungs. Somehow.

"Excuse me, Senator, but taking a dump on my neighbor's front doorstep has become a sort of daily ritual to me. I need to do it to be happy. This law is a slap in the face to me, and to millions of Americans like me."

[C0ckney]

i've smoked weed for years (although over here you put baccy in joints), but i've always firmly believed that smoking ciggies is a mug's game. i know some people who don't smoke normally but will when they have a drink, some others will reserve smoking for when they're on pills or coke. i've tried a few times when in an altered state and don't really see what it adds to the experience.

[Fake Boris]

Starting that way might be fine, but switching would be more difficult. The addiction to nicotine gets people to really love the feeling of smoke in their lungs. Somehow.

Yes.

This is how I picked up smoking. I was a toker (weed every night), but I didn't smoke tobacco. I eventually stopped smoking weed except for rare occasions, but the feeling of inhaling smoke while drinking a beer or a cup of wine became associated with relaxing. So I picked up smoking instead.

[ColdPhoenix]

I wonder why people don't go back to snuff. Never tried it (now an ex-smoker of 6 or so months) but it sounds like good stuff!!

[Nikolai]

After we got the new smoking law a few years back, we've had a large growth of "snus"(dunno the english term), wet tobacco which you place under your upper lip. Especially after the bag version came on the market.

[Lorizael]

Methinks this calls for a .
Meanwhile, is there some compelling reason why people can't switch to chewing tobacco? Or some other nicotine delivery system which is more elegant and palatable and doesn't indiscriminately release poisons into the atmosphere?

Starting that way might be fine, but switching would be more difficult. The addiction to nicotine gets people to really love the feeling of smoke in their lungs. Somehow.

[notyoueither]

Then you need to spell that out in the contract. Otherwise, the employee's conscience rights trump the employers' desire. Default is, unless the employer takes steps to protect himself, that the employee's conscience takes precedent.

If the employee signs the contract saying that she will prescribe contraception, then she's legally obligated. Otherwise, no.

Bull****.

[Nikolai]

Well isn't this a cute thread. So civil and all. I must say I'm glad we have mods like Ming and the gang, who manages to separate personal opinions and preferences from their work as mods. That's hard work, in case people didn't know. I have personal experience in being a mod for a smaller site, and I tell you, Ming & co is doing a great job. And without pay too, poor bastards.

[Ben Kenobi]

A vendor choosing to stock a new product is not a policy change.

Given the mess I had to sort out, yes it is. It wouldn't be stocked with considerable discussion, but I suppose you know my job better then I do.

No, that was not the issue with Eckerd. The case was that a woman who had been raped got a prescription for emergency contraception, which Eckerd carried and had always done so. The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription for the customer, citing his moral beliefs. Eckerd eventually fired him. At the time, you defended the pharmacist and said Eckerd was wrong to do so.

Yes, I believe she acted in the way she ought to have, and we'd be better off if more pharmacists did the same. I don't believe Eckhard should have fired her, even if he was justified in doing so. Just because you are legally able to do something doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

Regardless, birth control is medication, and if the store's overall policy is "You will dispense any medications we carry as a part of your job," then a change of products is covered. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense birth control, then he shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Wrong. The job of a pharmacist isn't to just rubberstamp a prescription. If it were, we'd have Mickey D clerks filling them out. I really don't understand why people don't respect the training that a pharmacist must do in order to do their job. If a prescription would provoke drug conflicts that the physician was unaware, then it's their duty not to fill out the prescription.

Refusing to sell a legal product that your employer expects you to sell is indeed a valid cause for termination.

Then you need to spell that out in the contract. Otherwise, the employee's conscience rights trump the employers' desire. Default is, unless the employer takes steps to protect himself, that the employee's conscience takes precedent.

If the employee signs the contract saying that she will prescribe contraception, then she's legally obligated. Otherwise, no.

Of course, since most states are at-will anyway, this isn't going to be relevant most of the time. Still, I find it baffling to think that any employee could refuse to do an integral part of his job and not be fired for that.

I find it baffling that you'd support an employer willing to run roughshod over employee conscience rights when it's about contraception, but would bend over backwards when it has to do with smoking. My position is consistant across both. If the employer makes it very clear that the employee will be required to do something and specifies that in the contract, and the employee signs it, then they are obligated to do so.

I find it even more baffling that you want employers to have enough "flexibility" to expose their employees to what you acknowledge is a toxic substance that isn't an integral part of their job, while at the same time here arguing that an employer doesn't have cause to dismiss someone because they won't do precisely what they're paid to do. Insanity.

I see dealing with smokers a core part of a job as a waitress or bartender. Contraception on the other hand is just one of tens of thousands of pharmaceuticals, and you are saying it's a core part of their job. You must see bartenders as skilled positions and pharmacists as unskilled.

Then you agree to decriminalize prostitution.

If you are a john and solicit a police officer, that's your problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

Natural equivalents? What are the natural equivalents of contraception? I'm almost afraid to ask. Anyone who sells a herbal contraceptive ought to be sued and imprisoned.

There are many things that should be banned IMHO, but our government in it's wisdom believes that if it's natural it's ok. Thank the greenies.

The question has come up.

[Boris Godunov]

I see it now as more of a business issue. Pharmacies should be able to run as they see fit, in choosing what they wish to stock. If they wish to stock contraception, that is a policy change.

A vendor choosing to stock a new product is not a policy change.

The store policy was no contraception or natural equivalents, and it would not simply go into the store without first being discussed by the owner and the staff. The issue with Eckhard is how they conducted their transition. I do not believe it is right for a pharmacy to expect staff which has not ever dispensed contraception to do so without complaint.

No, that was not the issue with Eckerd. The case was that a woman who had been raped got a prescription for emergency contraception, which Eckerd carried and had always done so. The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription for the customer, citing his moral beliefs. Eckerd eventually fired him. At the time, you defended the pharmacist and said Eckerd was wrong to do so.

Regardless, birth control is medication, and if the store's overall policy is "You will dispense any medications we carry as a part of your job," then a change of products is covered. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense birth control, then he shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Most items don't have conscience issues. Either keep the employee on and have them refer to another who is willing to dispense, and if that isn't possible and you are willing to let the employee go, you have to provide her severance, etc, as it's not termination with cause.

Refusing to sell a legal product that your employer expects you to sell is indeed a valid cause for termination. Of course, since most states are at-will anyway, this isn't going to be relevant most of the time. Still, I find it baffling to think that any employee could refuse to do an integral part of his job and not be fired for that.

I find it even more baffling that you want employers to have enough "flexibility" to expose their employees to what you acknowledge is a toxic substance that isn't an integral part of their job, while at the same time here arguing that an employer doesn't have cause to dismiss someone because they won't do precisely what they're paid to do. Insanity.

Government only knows of contracts that they discover. If employee and employer were happy with the contract why should they intervene?

Then you agree to decriminalize prostitution.

[Dr Strangelove]

.

The store policy was no contraception or natural equivalents,

Natural equivalents? What are the natural equivalents of contraception? I'm almost afraid to ask. Anyone who sells a herbal contraceptive ought to be sued and imprisoned.